Publications by authors named "Deborah A Edwards"

This is the first investigation of the bioavailability of PCBs associated with paint chips (PC) dispersed in sediment. Bioavailability of PCB-containing PC in sediment was measured using ex situ polyethylene passive samplers (PS) and compared to that of PCBs from field-collected sediments. PC were mixed in freshwater sediment from a relatively uncontaminated site with no known PCB contamination sources and from a contaminated site with non-paint PCB sources.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were added to certain marine vessel bottom paints as a plasticizer to improve the adhesion and durability of the paint. The most common PCB formulation used to amend such paints was Aroclor 1254. Fugitive Aroclor-containing paint chips generated from vessel maintenance and repair operations represent a potential source of PCB contamination to sediments.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) was performed to evaluate the range of potential baseline and postremedy health risks to fish consumers at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (the "Site"). The analysis focused on risks of consuming fish resident to the Site containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), given that this exposure scenario and contaminant are the primary basis for US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) selected remedy per the January 2017 Record of Decision (ROD). The PRA used probability distributions fit to the same data sets used in the deterministic baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) as well as recent sediment and fish tissue data to evaluate the range and likelihood of current baseline cancer risks and noncancer hazards for anglers.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This article introduces the Portland Harbor Superfund Site Sustainability Project (PHSP) special series in this issue. The Portland Harbor Superfund Site is one of the "mega-sediment sites" in the United States, comprising about 10 miles of the Lower Willamette River, running through the heart of Portland, Oregon. The primary aim of the PHSP was to conduct a comprehensive sustainability assessment, integrating environmental, economic, and social considerations of a selection of the remedial alternatives laid out by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based cost-benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Regulatory decisions on remediation should consider affected communities' needs and values, and how these might be impacted by remedial options; this process requires that diverse stakeholders are able to engage in a transparent consideration of value trade-offs and of the distribution of risks and benefits associated with remedial actions and outcomes. The Stakeholder Values Assessment (SVA) tool was developed to evaluate remedial impacts on environmental quality, economic viability, and social equity in the context of stakeholder values and priorities. Stakeholder values were linked to the pillars of sustainability and also to a range of metrics to evaluate how sediment remediation affects these values.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The present paper describes a methodology for evaluating impacts of Superfund remedial alternatives on the regional economy in the context of a broader sustainability evaluation. Although economic impact methodology is well established, some applications to Superfund remedial evaluation have created confusion because of seemingly contradictory results. This confusion arises from failure to be explicit about 2 opposing impacts of remediation expenditures: 1) positive regional impacts of spending additional money in the region and 2) negative regional impacts of the need to pay for the expenditures (and thus forgo other expenditures in the region).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF